Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1864 1865 1866 1867 1868 1869 1870 1871 1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 1877 1878 1879 Next
Comments 93551 to 93600:
-
JMurphy at 04:13 AM on 5 March 2011Icing the Medieval Warm Period
williambaskerville, a quick Google found this WIKIPEDIA page which states that, in Denmark, July 2006 was the warmest July ever and the second highest temperature ever recorded there - only beaten by August 1997. It also states that Sweden's highest daily average temperatures were in 1994 although, indeed, the highest individual temperature readings were in 1947 and 1933. It also states that many high temperature records were broken over many parts of Central and Southern Finland. What are you trying to prove ? -
Berényi Péter at 04:08 AM on 5 March 2011Climate Sensitivity: The Skeptic Endgame
#85 KR at 15:22 PM on 4 March, 2011 Berényi - I'll admit to having some trouble following that last posting. Try harder please and you'll find it makes sense after all. The last I heard you were claiming that the relaxation time was essentially zero, so that there was no heating left in the pipeline. Now you are arguing that relaxation times are long enough to slow warming to a manageable level??? You're contradicting yourself. No, I am not. The nice thing about linear systems is that they are additive. If there are several different processes in the climate system operating on different timescales, the overall response is simply the sum of individual responses. So the impulse response function can be written as the sum of λk/τke-t/τk (if t > 0, zero otherwise) for k=1,2,...,n. Guess why the full set of (λk;τk) pairs, along with their error bars is never specified in the mainstream climate science literature. Just play with the numbers and you'll see it is entirely possible to have a pretty high equilibrium climate sensitivity (sum of λk's) with extremely low short term climate sensitivity (sum of λk's for which τk is small) while rate of change in response to a quasi-realistic CO2 forcing scenario is never too steep. In fact this state of affairs is consistent with all the empirical data we have. Second, 1934 is not the start of anthropogenic carbon forcing - that's somewhere around the beginning of the industrial revolution, circa 1850 or so. Come on, the transition in the first half of 20th century was of course smooth, but the error in the response is the response to the difference between a smoothly changing excitation and this artificial one. As the difference between them is small and it was largest a long time ago (more than 70 years), the error in the climate response as of now is small. Third, relaxation times are relative to multiple time frames - from the several week H2O forcing to the multi-century ice response. Your simple formula is therefore inappropriate. And, since rate of change is dependent on scale of forcing, your 1.8C/century limit is, in my opinion, nonsense. As for the first part, see above. As for the latter part, please clarify what "rate of change is dependent on scale of forcing" is supposed to mean. Describe the dependence you think should hold in detail. -
williambaskerville at 03:48 AM on 5 March 2011Icing the Medieval Warm Period
@ DB "No one is suggesting that the warming of the global will be a uniform or linear process. But it is indeed a global process, as you can see here" If it is ok for the current warming not to be a uniform or linear process, why it is/was not ok for the so called MWP? I am convinced that the MWP was at least a bi-hemispheric event. Unfortunately we have not enough data to give information about the existence of a "MWP" in the equatorial areas of the world. I have listed some in my post: http://mittelalterlichewarmperiode.blogspot.com/2011/01/prima-klima-am-aquator.html For me there is no doubt at all that we have hundreds of pr-papers affirming the claim of H. Lamb for the Northern Hemisphere. Even scientists, sceptical towards the terminus "MWP" say that "mean temperatures during this interval were warmer than the subsequent Little Ice Age" (P.e. Crowley, Lowery: How Warm Was the Medieval Warm Period?, in: Ambio, Vol. 29 No 1, Feb. 2000, 54). We have also evidence for the existence of a MWP in Southern America, Africa, the Antarctica and New Zealand. On the other hand it looks like that there's a broad consent within scientific community that the LIA was a global event (p.e. Wanner 2008; the newest paper by Lane et al.: Oxygen isotope evidence of Little Ice Age aridity on the Caribbean slope of the Cordillera Central Dominican Republic. They write: "Climate change during the so-called Little Ice Age (LIA) of the 15th to 19th centuries was once thought to be limited to the high northern latitudes, but increasing evidence reflects significant climate change in the tropics"). If we accept that the LIA was a global event and, as Wanner wrote, one of the coldest periods within the last several thousand years, we have imho to accept that the temperatures at the foregoing time period were warmer than they were in the LIA too. Why don`t call it MWP like Lamb called it? For me one thing is clear. If you don`t accept the MWP as a warm period you can't accept the current warm period as a warm period either. As I said before, there are glaciers increasing in the Karakorum, in Norway and New Zealand even in Argentina. Don`t you know that the highest temperatures in Scandinavia were in the 30 and 40s of the 20th century? Best William http://mittelalterlichewarmperiode.blogspot.comModerator Response: [DB] Please read this post and then this post for background on the Medieval Warm Period. If you then still maintain the MWP was a global phenomenon, continue that conversation there. For posterity and context, current northern hemisphere temps greatly exceed those of the MWP:
Northern Hemisphere Temperature Reconstruction by Moberg et al. (2005) shown in blue, Instrumental Temperatures from NASA shown in Red -
dana1981 at 03:38 AM on 5 March 2011Climate Sensitivity: The Skeptic Endgame
HR #91:" how much of the 0.8oC would you attribute to anthropogenic GHGs?"
About 80%. -
thepoodlebites at 03:34 AM on 5 March 2011Ice age predicted in the 70s
#37 I find myself at a disadvantage here. If I answer your question my post most likely will be deleted, evaluated as an off-topic opinion. I'm finding the Climate Depot's link a valuable resource. I cited one peer-reviewed paper that supports my argument and I can cite many others, here. I will provide more links if this post is not deleted. Richard Feynman's first principle of scientific integrity states "you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. After you have not fooled yourself, it's easy not to fool other scientists." This first principle should be applied to everybody in equal proportion. -
les at 02:23 AM on 5 March 2011Climate Sensitivity: The Skeptic Endgame
Sorry Eruc; CERN doesn't just use them for QM - far from it. The fact is that such techniques are widely used and yield useful results -and probabilities, not "probabilities" - in all kinds of situations. Ofcourse they, like all techniques, can be used well or badly. That has to be argued, per application, on individual merits ... or, if you prefer on your POV -
Fredrik Charpentier Ljungqvist at 02:14 AM on 5 March 2011Icing the Medieval Warm Period
There have been a lot of discussions about the spatio-temporal pattern of the Medieval Warm Period in the last two decades. But the statements, often made, that the evidence for a Medieval Warm Period is most clear in Europe simply does not hold true. The evidences are in fact even better, and more numerous, from China. Also, the data from Greenland are quite good. I do not know why the Chinese scholarship, mostly published in English, so often are overlooked in the context of the Medieval Warm Period. This is a pity! The second half of the 10th century was pretty warm, well above the 1961–1990 mean, in most regions in the extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere where we have data (China, Europe, Greenland, Alaska, and Siberia). The data from the tropics and Southern Hemisphere still too spare to say anything certain still about the amplitude and extent of the Medieval Warm Period compare to the recent warming. What we do know is that it was synchronically warm in Greenland, Europe and China, and Siberia as well as, probably, over large parts of North America, c. AD 950–1050. Only this time interval shows evidence of coherent warm conditions in multiple regions. Later in medieval times (and earlier) the conditions were more geographically heterogeneous although quite similar still in Europe and China.Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Thank you for taking the time to share your perspectives and expertise, Dr. Ljungqvist. An expert's presence is always welcome here. -
bbickmore at 02:03 AM on 5 March 2011Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 3
Alexandre, I have no idea how reliable it is, except that it is pretty accurate for the 20th century. I believe I linked to both data sets. -
Alexandre at 01:49 AM on 5 March 2011Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 3
Kevin C # 15 & 16 Thanks. Yes, I understood that too (even if more superficially and intuitively than your explanation). Spencer's model just yields absurd results as we get further from the calibration period. My question was not regarding the analysis of Spencer's work, but the certainty of the reconstruction itself. There's a quite popular meteorologist here in Brazil that uses the PDO argument now and then, and I'd like to know how much I can depend on that kind of long term reconstruction to make a counter-argument. -
Eric (skeptic) at 01:18 AM on 5 March 2011Climate Sensitivity: The Skeptic Endgame
les, being proper for quantum mechanics at CERN doesn't justify creating distributions for climate parameters that are completely described by classical mechanics. It impacts the policy debate only because the resulting "probabilities" are (from my POV) easy to unravel. E.g., someone links to a paleoclimate sensitivity argument and I simply point out the red boxes in Knutti, figure 3, that were left out of the figure 3 above (measurements for probabilityy distribution were not made with current climate) -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 01:11 AM on 5 March 2011Icing the Medieval Warm Period
... a propos Anasasi - generally: the drought in MWP. From the papers cited here: Land surface temperature changes in Northern Iberia since 4000 yr BP, based on δ13C of speleothems, Martín-Chivelet et al., 2011.: - “... 1350–750 yr BP warm period (Medieval Warm Period) punctuated by two cooler events at ~ 1250 [!] and ~ 850 yr BP ...” The same can be seen and here: Ababneh, 2006. Hence the declaration: “This drought marks the middle of the Medieval Warm Period - an interval of warmer temperatures between approximately AD 800-1300 characterized by greater drought duration and frequency in the Northern Great Plains compared to more modern times.” by Stambaugh et al., 2011.; does not give decisive argument to statements: drought = MWA - even regionally. -
Kevin C at 01:05 AM on 5 March 2011Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 3
One other thought: With Arthur's equation we can now run Spencer's model *backwards* through time using Spencer's parameters. The exponential decay of the transient becomes an exponential growth. The size of the transient at 1900 looks to be about -0.4C. An exponential with period of 30y multiplies by about 25 times every century. That means by 1800 it would be about -10C, by 1700 the temperature of the earth would have been approaching absolute zero. No matter how big the PDO, there's no way it can overcome an exponential. -
James Wight at 00:43 AM on 5 March 2011Putting a new finger on climate change
“10 fingerprints: Make room for Number 11 (gonna need a bigger glove).” Actually, make that number 12. Climatologists have recently found a human fingerprint in intense rainfall: Two seminal Nature papers join growing body of evidence that human emissions fuel extreme weather, flooding that harm humans and the environment -
les at 00:31 AM on 5 March 2011Climate Sensitivity: The Skeptic Endgame
90 Eric:when I see a probability distribution I immediately look around for the data it was based on.
well yes. but now you have seen that that is not the only sort of probability distribution, and really - as a remark on the general technique, rather than the objective/subjective side issue - it is a perfectly proper technique which lots of science uses (e.g. CERN wouldn't work without it). In my limited experience of them, however, they are rarely used to determine The Truth, but to bound understanding and projections... as, IMHO, they are being used here. As for policy, it's also an issue with lots of obfuscating ideas, like intergalactic cosmic ray flux, and the demand that things are more absolute that is ever the case in reality, put about by people who probably actually know better... which is definitely off topic. -
HumanityRules at 00:28 AM on 5 March 2011Climate Sensitivity: The Skeptic Endgame
"If the IPCC climate sensitivity range is correct, if we were to stabilize atmospheric CO2 concentrations at today's levels, once the planet reached equilibrium, the radiative forcing would have caused between 0.96 and 2.2°C of surface warming with a most likely value of 1.4°C. Given that the Earth's average surface temperature has only warmed 0.8°C over the past century" Dana how much of the 0.8oC would you attribute to anthropogenic GHGs? -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 00:01 AM on 5 March 2011Putting a new finger on climate change
@Marcus CO2 poorer in 14C and 13C - may have come from fossil fuels, but also from the soil, or deep ocean. Nowinski et al., 2010.: “Radiocarbon ages of heterotrophically respired C ranged from <50 to 235 years BP in July mineral soil samples and from 1,525 to 8,300 years BP [!] in August samples, suggesting that old soil C in permafrost soils may be metabolized upon thawing.” Upper-ocean-to-atmosphere radiocarbon offsets imply fast deglacial carbon dioxide release, Rose et al., 2010. : “The atmospheric decrease in the radiocarbon signal coincides with regionally intensified upwelling and marine biological productivity ... ..., suggesting that CO2 released by means of deep water upwelling in the Southern Ocean lost most of its original depleted-14C imprint as a result of exchange and isotopic equilibration with the atmosphere.” Oxygen ... - we can not be attributed strictly decrease atmospheric O2 of A. CO2. A conceptual model for the temporal spectrum of oceanic oxygen, Ito and Deutsch, 2010.: “Observed across the world oceans in recent decades have been interpreted as a response of marine biogeochemistry to climate change. Little is known however about the spectrum of oceanic O2 variability [...].” “We find a statistically significant spectral peak at a 15–20 year timescale in the subpolar North Pacific [background], but the mechanisms connecting to climate variability remain uncertain.” On evaluating ocean models with atmospheric potential oxygen, Naegler et al., 2006.: “We used observed and simulated atmospheric potential oxygen (APO) to evaluate simulated air-sea flux fields from 11 ocean global carbon cycle models. APO is defined in terms of atmospheric CO2 , O2 and N 2 so as not to depend on terrestrial photosynthesis and respiration. Hence, it is in principal suited to evaluate simulated air-sea fluxes of these gases.” “The simulated amplitude of the seasonal APO variability was generally less than observed. We conclude that it is difficult to validate ocean models based on APO because shortcomings in atmospheric transport models and problems with data representativity cannot be distinguished from ocean model deficiencies.” -
Kevin C at 23:58 PM on 4 March 2011Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 3
Alexandre@14: I think the point now is that it doesn't matter. Based on Barry's post, it might have been valid as a test of predictive power. Indeed, the question of whether Spencer's model had any predictive power should have been tested by Spencer in the first place. However, after Arthur's analysis it is kind of irrelevant. All the model consists of is a target temperature, an initial transient from which temperature decays exponentially towards the target temperature, and a forcing which also has an effect which decays exponentially. In fact, you can preconvolute the forcing to get Arthur's Q(t), and you just have a linear combination of the transient and Q. The transient is clearly meaningless - it's an arbitrary parameter and it's effect depends totally on when you start your simulation. And yet without it, Spencer's model can't even produce the rising temperature from 1910-1940. -
Alexandre at 23:42 PM on 4 March 2011Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 3
How robust is the MacDonald and Case (2006)PDO reconstruction? To what extent can we rely on that as an accurate series? -
gallopingcamel at 23:33 PM on 4 March 2011Icing the Medieval Warm Period
[ -Edit: Complaints about moderation removed- ] However this post speaks directly to the relation between historic events and climate, a special interest for me. I applaud the author for providing several interesting links. After reading everything that was not behind a pay wall, I was encouraged to find that the Martín-Chivelet et al abstract claims clear correlations with ice core data and historical events such as the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods. Thank you for an excellent post Daniel Bailey although it does pretty much the opposite of what the title suggests. As Willam of Baskerville says this is not an argument against the MWP. For example, here is the concluding paragraph from Matin-Chivelet et. al: "Spectral analysis of the time series shows consistent climatic cycles of ~ 400, ~ 900 and ~ 1300 yr, comparable with those recognized in the North Atlantic marine record, the Greenland ice cores, and other terrestrial records for the middle – late Holocene, suggesting common climate forcing mechanisms related to changes in solar irradiance and North Atlantic circulation patterns."Moderator Response: [DB] Actually, all the data we have shows that the MWP to not be an analog for modern warming in both scope and degree. In addition, the available data shows the MWP to be a heterogeneous mix of cooling, warming and drought over similarly varied geographic and temporal areas. And what warming data there is for the MWP shows it to fall short of the warming of the last 30 years, which is now comparable to levels last achieved in the Holocene Altithermal. -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 23:27 PM on 4 March 2011Icing the Medieval Warm Period
@Robert Way I do not know all the work of J. Zasadni, perhaps this applies only to the Zillertal -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 23:20 PM on 4 March 2011Icing the Medieval Warm Period
I think that this publication speaks in a way that best condensed - all: Climatic fluctuations in the Central Region of Argentina in the last 1000 years, Cioccale, 1999.: “The Medieval Warm Period was characterized by a humid and warm climate in the plains and recession of the Andean glaciers. In contrast, during the Little Ice Age the plains had temperate, semi-arid to arid climates, and Andean glaciers advanced.” The “fall” of civilization that (so far) is always cool - never warming. -
Eric (skeptic) at 23:19 PM on 4 March 2011Climate Sensitivity: The Skeptic Endgame
les, my advice to poptech is Choose One (objective or subjective). I have always had an objectivist philosophy (although not perfectly matched to Randianism), so when I see a probability distribution I immediately look around for the data it was based on. Often there is literally none. As for your policy argument, we are not facing unknowns like one or more typhoid Marys or a human-based decision to go to war. It is simply a complex natural process with some true unknowables like intergalactic cosmic ray flux, future volcanic activity, future solar activity (known to some extent), etc. A lot of these are ambiguous or more likely to cool, so not really worth debating. Everything else is knowable. There is no reason to apply subjectivity to the issue of sensitivity, just better models, validated against real world measurements. The bottom line is that 5C warming (or choose your favorite number) has a zero or a 100% probability of happening within time X (choose 100 years but not 1000), under specific conditions such as BAU. That statement contains no room for any subjectivity other than BAU being made as a human choice which is really only a marginal issue. -
mspelto at 23:18 PM on 4 March 2011Icing the Medieval Warm Period
There are a few advancing glaciers, but most of the advances are quite limited and hence not overrunning developed forest vegetation. The evidence uncovered here is pretty systematic for the time periods noted in Table 1. The difference between a glacier advancing and disappearing like Helm Glacier, one of the sample sites is vast.Moderator Response: [DB] Thanks, Mauri! -
williambaskerville at 22:49 PM on 4 March 2011Icing the Medieval Warm Period
Hi, I don't think this is a argument against the MWP. Don't we actually have increasing glaciers in Norway, New Zealand and the Karakorum? Don't we have regions in the world, not getting warmer? I am writing about this on my post "Nicht alle Gletscher schrumpf(t)en" (Not all glaciers we/a-re melting) http://tinyurl.com/64kmfuj If you want to read more, take a look on my German blog: http://mittelalterlichewarmperiode.blogspot.com Feel free to post comments!! Best Willam of Baskerville Ps. I've made interviews on this topic - MWP - with scientists like Dr. Heinz Wanner, Dr. Ulf Büntgen, Frederic Ljungqvist and others.Moderator Response: [DB] No one is suggesting that the warming of the globe will be a uniform or linear process. But it is indeed a global process, as you can see here:
-
robert way at 22:44 PM on 4 March 2011Icing the Medieval Warm Period
The LIA in the alps did not end in 1950. That's a complete fallacy and is not supported by the literature at all. You might find one paper where a small portion advanced during that period but the fast majority of glaciers in the alps had their LIA between 1750 and 1850. -
Kevin C at 22:39 PM on 4 March 2011Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 3
Here's a graph of the 1000 year PDO forcing used to drive the 1000 year simulation in figure 10. I just took the Macdonald and Case data and applied a 19 year moving average.
Comparing this with figure 10, it is now obvious that Spencer's model starts from an initial temperature set by the ΔTo value (off the bottom of the graph in this case) and constantly heads towards towards a temperature set by the equilibrium temperature and the current value of the forcing term.
-
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 22:32 PM on 4 March 2011Icing the Medieval Warm Period
#The Inconvenient Skeptic ... a propos China I would add: Characteristics of cold–warm variation in the Hetao region and its surrounding areas in China during the past 5000 years, Li et al., 2010.: “1450 - 1000 cal yr BP: The climate was relatively warm compare with the temperature of its adjacent periods but less so than the degree of warmth at 5000 cal yr BP. This period corresponded to the Medieval Warm Period.” -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 22:20 PM on 4 March 2011Icing the Medieval Warm Period
@Marcus Not so long ago in my TV - Professor L. Thompson - explaining the length of the Maya (more than 5 thousand. years) - his last end, he showed how in the Andean glaciers have advanced so quickly - it now - going back - glaciers reveal - frozen, “of unimpaired quality” plants ... Droughts - in this period of strong cooling (Neo-glacial) - covered most of the two continents of America. The same drought (cooling effect) destroyed the civilizations of the Sahara and Middle East. Stable isotopes of a subfossil Tamarix tree from the Dead Sea region, Israel, and their implications for the Intermediate Bronze Age, Frumkin, 2009.: “The Sedom Tamarix demonstrates a few hundred years of 13 C and 15 N isotopic enrichment, culminating in extremely high δ 13 C and δ 15 N values. Calibration using modern Tamarix stable isotopes in various climatic settings in Israel shows direct relationship between isotopic enrichment and climate deterioration, particularly rainfall decrease.” “This was apparently the most severe long-term historical drought that affected the region in the mid-late Holocene.” Lonie Thompson explained that the Atacama desert in the Quaternary, only once was inhabited by people - during MWA ... During the Roman maximum - period; around Masada was warmer and wetter - growing bushes Tamarix at the point where today it is a desert. Climatic effects on the δ 18 O and δ 13 C of cellulose in the desert tree Tamarix jordanis, Lipp et al., 1996.: “Since the Roman period, RH at Masada decreased by about 17% [!], while the δ 18 O value of local groundwater remained similar to present-day values, suggesting that changing atmospheric circulation has played a role in climate change in the Middle East over the past two millennia.” Polish scientist J. Zasadni, from the Institute of Geological Sciences, Jagiellonian University, who is preparing a doctoral thesis about shifting of glaciers in the Alps - Zillertal, after many years (and very precise) research - argues strongly that: in the days of ancient Rome and later - warming in the Middle Ages - expiring on the late fourteenth century, frequented alpine glaciers coverage certainly considerably smaller than today. LIA in the Alps ended only in 1950 ... Anasazi - “During the Pueblo II period, from 900-1100 CE, these designs were made even more bold, and the Anasazi (Hisatsinom) began to build kivas, or communal rooms for ceremonial purposes in their villages. Their population increased, and during this period small Anasazi villages began to spread throughout the southwest.” “During the Pueblo III period from 1100-1300 CE, the Anasazi (Hisatsinom) began to build the cliff dwellings for which they are most well-known. Many buildings in these villages under the cliffs were several stories tall.” „For unknown reasons, near the end of this period the western Anasazi (Hisatsinom) sites were completely abandoned, while the eastern sites continued to flourish and expand.” ... circa 1270-1300 - the beginning of the LIA in America ... -
RSVP at 22:05 PM on 4 March 2011Icing the Medieval Warm Period
"It's cold out!"... and I am suppose to believe it should be colder on average, and that the world would be better off if this were the case. As long as the price of fossil fuels is rising faster than the temperature, it's hard to imagine how winters of the future are going to be more confortable. -
les at 22:03 PM on 4 March 2011Climate Sensitivity: The Skeptic Endgame
83 Eric objective/subjective?!?! now you sound like Poppy Tech!! ;) ;) < big wink > sure, though. of course for scientists that's fine. Governments rarely have the luxury - as I pointed out to someone: armies have to be maintained without knowing the exact probability of war or invasion, hospitals and school have to be build with out knowing exactly the population in 20 years, vaccines have to be stockpiled without knowing the exact epidemiology or the next flu outbreak etc. etc. Power security has to be maintained, the environmental resources managed, healthy environment preserved (or restored)... better to understand the proper meaning of likelihood rather than stuffing it in quotes and pretending it's meaningless. -
Kevin C at 21:50 PM on 4 March 2011Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 3
APSmith@11: That's a beautifully clear analysis and probably the definitive one, at least for anyone who can (still) solve a differential equation. It leaves me banging my head asking 'why didn't I see that straight away'? To many computers are bad for the brain. We've forgotten the power of algebra! -
The Inconvenient Skeptic at 21:23 PM on 4 March 2011Icing the Medieval Warm Period
Here are some paleoclimate studies from China. http://epic.awi.de/Publications/And2005g.pdf http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL... http://hol.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/13/6/933 ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/historical/china/china_winter_temp.txt None of these are records from Chinese history, but nodern (non tree-ring) reconstructions. -
invicta at 21:12 PM on 4 March 2011Icing the Medieval Warm Period
invicta It occurs to me that an area of the world that has a well documented dynastic cycle for at least two thousand years is China. I have never seen any references to any records from this area being used to support or deny claims for the MWP or similar globa v regional discussions. Are there people with knowledge of the cycles of dynastic rise and decline which do seem to have at least some links to natural disasters (famine Drought etc)? I have no specialist knowledge myself but would be fascinated to see some discussion of the subject in the appropriate place -
Gilles at 20:18 PM on 4 March 2011Climate Sensitivity: The Skeptic Endgame
sorry for some misprints and disappearing signs. You should read : e : you're wrong, if you take a random gaussian distribution of the "f" amplication factor, with an average value f0, the average value of the "1/1-f" (and hence sensitivity) factor will be larger than the 1/(1-f0)) This is a high bias. and If tau is small (with respect to the characteristic timescale for S(t)), T(t) follows closely S. F(t). -
Tom Curtis at 20:10 PM on 4 March 2011Putting a new finger on climate change
Philippe Chantreau @11 With regard to C14 and the ocean: yes, you are correct. The ocean contains much more CO2 than does the atmosphere, but in equilibrium, an equal number of CO2 molecules flow each way at the surface. That means residence times in the ocean are much larger than residence times in the atmosphere. So for a given molecule in the ocean, it is probably a long time since it was in the atmosphere, and hence had a chance to form with a C14 atom. In contrast, a molecule in the atmosphere has (obviously) been very recently in the atmosphere, and has therefore a higher chance of having formed with a C14 atom. (I'm not sure that this is clear either, but I'm not sure I can make it clearer in a short space.) Regarding the C13/C12, you are tecnically correct, but I'm not sure your phrasing avoids any likely misunderstanding. -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 20:05 PM on 4 March 2011Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 2
@Shoyemore As quoted by you (perfectly known to me), Mike Lockwood's paper, is also an important sentence: "... the current [solar] grand maximum has already lasted for an unusually long time ..." Lockwood (in this paper) will not close a road to prove that the Sun has a more significant impact on the climate than we thought previously. However, imposes a condition: “Thus advocates of the huge solar amplification (positive feedback) factor [that is, for example, I] must also explain why the feedback to greenhouse forcing is at the same time negative. The issue is not ‘can the GMAST curve be fitted with combinations of solar variations’—with enough free variables the answer will be ‘yes’ (but such fits would have very low or no statistical significance): the challenge for attempts to show such a phenomenon could be real is to give credible explanations of feedback amplifications of more than 13 within the constraints set by observations and their uncertainties (and yet still give negative feedbacks to GHG forcings).” As cited above, this paper presents but too little potential direct and indirect influences of the Sun, which completes Lockwood (as a co-author) in a later work: Solar Influences on Climate, L.J. Gray, J. Beer, M. Geller, J.D. Haigh, M. Lockwood, K. Matthes ,U. Cubasch, D. Fleitmann, G. Harrison, L. Hood, J. Luterbacher, G. A. Meehl, D. Shindell, B. van Geel, W. White (Reviews in Geophysics, 2010). In this work - with many "types" of direct and indirect sun (especially the impact of changes in solar UV - for example, ozone, ozone in the stratosphere, water vapor, etc..) is a record that they require “urgent” research - because we know about them too enough - to assess (even initially) the actual impact on climate. -
scaddenp at 19:33 PM on 4 March 2011Putting a new finger on climate change
There is continued fractionation going on so that different sources having different degrees of C13 depletion. -
Gilles at 19:17 PM on 4 March 2011Climate Sensitivity: The Skeptic Endgame
e : your wrong, if you take a random gaussian distribution of the "f" amplication factor, with an average value, the average value of the "1/1-f" (and hence sensitivity) factor will be larger than the 1/(1- )) This is a high bias. I don't want to prove that climate models and measurements are wrong. I'm just saying that the kind of line you adopt (reasoning on a large sample of different valuers) is not very convincing from a scientific point of view., if the issue is whether the whole model is correct or not. It relies on the implicit assumption that the models have been proved to be true - which is precisely the point. This is kind of a circular justification. concerning the point of relaxation timescales : in the simplest approximation, there is a single timescale, and the relevant equation is dT/dt + T/tau = S.F(t)/tau where tau is the relaxation timescale and S the sensitivity. The exact solution of this equation is T =S. ∫ F(t')exp(t-t'/tau) dt'. Mathematically, T(t) tries to follow the variations of F(t), but with some delay of the order of tau, and smoothes all variations of the order of tau. Basically, it responds to the average of F(t) over a past period tau. If tau is small (with respect to the characteristic timescale for S(t)), T(t) follows closely S(t). If it is large , the T/tau term is negligible and one has rather dT/dt = S F(t)/tau , so T(t) = S ∫ F(t) dt'/tau. The "response" is the the integral of F(t) (the system "accumulates heat") but it is curtailed by a factor tau. Now there are interesting questions around tau. If tau is small, S should be just the ration of T(t) to F(t), so it should be precisely determined by current variations, which is obviously not the case. So we are rather in a "long" tau, longer than or comparable with 30 years. This allows some "flexibility " between S and tau, because constant ratio S/tau will give the same signal T(t) - I think this is the main reason for the scattering of S (and tau) , they are not well constrained by the data. However, if tau is large, the response of a linearly increasing forcing should be quadratic (this is obvious because the temperature has to increase faster in the future to exceed the 2°C thershold for instance), so an acceleration should be measurable. Is it the case? not really. Temperature are less or equally increasing than 30 years ago - you can discuss whether they're still increasing or not, but they're not accelerating.That's kind of puzzling in my sense (leading to the obvious observation that if they aren't accelrating, a warming rate of 0.15 °C will only produce 1.5 °C after 100 years). So there is a small window for which the sensitivity is high but not too much, and the timescale high but not too much, and the "curvature" will be significative in the near future , but not yet just now. Outside this window, the curve T(t) is essentially linear with a linearly increasing forcing (as the forcing is is logarithmic with the concentration and the production of GHG is supposed to increase more or less exponentially with a constant growth rate, the forcing should be close to linear). This is only possible for tau between 30 and 100 years, Say (which is essentially what is found in current models). But again this raises other interesting questions. 30 to 100 years is SHORT with respect to paleoclimatic times , and astronomical (Milankovitch) changes of forcings. So IF it were in this range, temperatures should follow rather closely teh forcings, and change only very slowly with them. But we hear here also on a lot of "variations " of climate at the centennal time scale (medieval "anomaly" whatever happened then, D-O events, and so on) which should NOT happen if the forcing is not changing at this time scale. But why is the forcing changing? aerosols, volcanoes, do they have a reason to statistically change when averaged over 100 years or so (remember that the temperature changes by averaging over this time scale?) -
Tom Curtis at 18:23 PM on 4 March 2011Crux of a Core, Part 1b
Here is a detail of Rob Honeycutt's image @25 so that the extent to which temperature fluctuations in northern and southern polar regions are antiphased during the Holocence can be clearly seen:
And for completeness, ice cores over the Holocene for a Greenland, a Northern Chinese (Northern Hemisphere), two Andian (Tropcical), and two Antarctic (Southern Hemisphere)to give some idea as to the extent of regional variability involved:
-
Hockey Stick Own Goal
angusmac> Consequently, it is not unreasonable to conclude from Ljungqvist's reconstruction that the MWP was as warm as 1998. Considering that Ljungqvist used decadal averages (as Tom pointed out), it would indeed be unreasonable and quite inaccurate to draw this conclusion. -
Daniel Bailey at 17:09 PM on 4 March 2011Twice as much Canada, same warming climate
muoncounter Yeah, not yet so blind as to have missed that. Nice segue from Arctic Amplification to Spinal Tap! Dunno if you follow Arctic ice developments much, but Patrick Lockerby over at Neven's Sea Ice blog just linked to his March Arctic Ice post here. Patrick is explaining his rationale as to "...why I expect the central Arctic to be essentially ice-free by the end of this Arctic summer 2011". Also says the 2011 melt season has already begun... (Gonna have to find amps that go to 12) The Yooper -
Marcus at 16:12 PM on 4 March 2011Icing the Medieval Warm Period
OK, so maybe I overstated the whole "destruction" thing in regards to the Maya, but it was used as an example of societal collapse in Jared Diamond's book of the same name-specifically where societies failed to adapt to changing environmental conditions & so hastened their own demise. Sorry if that's off-topic. -
Riduna at 15:54 PM on 4 March 2011Putting a new finger on climate change
CH4 emitted from coalmining and decaying organic matter has residence of ~10 years during which it oxidizes to produce CO2. Am I right to assume that CO2 so produced is predominantly carbon isotope 12? -
apsmith at 15:41 PM on 4 March 2011Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 3
A bit of further analysis on this from me here: http://arthur.shumwaysmith.com/life/content/mathematical_analysis_of_roy_spencers_climate_model (using Barry's figures, thanks!) Spencer really should be ashamed of this. And turning it into a book! -
bbickmore at 15:38 PM on 4 March 2011Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 3
Hi Albatross @9, I sent him the links after I posted Part 3, but I haven't heard from him. Hopefully, he's combing goofing around with his model to see if I'm right. -
KR at 15:33 PM on 4 March 2011Climate Sensitivity: The Skeptic Endgame
Sorry, the start date should be 1800, not 1850, in my last post, for the start of anthropogenic CO2 - typing too fast... Incidentally, although I suspect most of the usual suspects will have seen this already, the YouTube video from CarbonTracker is worth showing to everyone. -
Tom Curtis at 15:30 PM on 4 March 2011Hockey Stick Own Goal
angusmac @135, the data may include 1998, but Lundquvist reports decadal averages. The early 1990's was quite cool compared to 1998, so there is still a sharp difference in temperature. The difference between the decadal average of GISStemp for 1990-1999 and 2000-2009 is 0.18 degrees, sufficient to lift recent tempertures well above the peak decadal average for the MWP (0.15 degrees greater than 1990's). Of course, that is the difference in global temperatures. The difference in NH extra tropical temperatures is likely to be far greater, and would show a correspondingly greater increase. -
KR at 15:22 PM on 4 March 2011Climate Sensitivity: The Skeptic Endgame
Berényi - I'll admit to having some trouble following that last posting. The last I heard you were claiming that the relaxation time was essentially zero, so that there was no heating left in the pipeline. Now you are arguing that relaxation times are long enough to slow warming to a manageable level??? You're contradicting yourself. Second, 1934 is not the start of anthropogenic carbon forcing - that's somewhere around the beginning of the industrial revolution, circa 1850 or so. Third, relaxation times are relative to multiple time frames - from the several week H2O forcing to the multi-century ice response. Your simple formula is therefore inappropriate. And, since rate of change is dependent on scale of forcing, your 1.8C/century limit is, in my opinion, nonsense. I'll leave it at that for now - you have posted completely contradictory arguments in just the last few days, I'm certain there are issues others might raise. -
ribwoods at 15:13 PM on 4 March 2011Putting a new finger on climate change
Rather than a new, 11th fingerprint, isn't this really just another example, as in Fingerprint 4, of measurement of the C-13/C-12 ratio incorporated into living things? It's independent of coral C-13/C-12 ratio measurements, but not so different an indicator of fossil-fuel origin as to deserve separate listing, I think. I'd just add it to Fingerprint 4. -
angusmac at 15:08 PM on 4 March 2011Hockey Stick Own Goal
Moderator @132, new data is always welcome. However, the purpose of my post was to show that you could use the data presented in Dana's post and come to a completely different conclusion. Tom @133 and Anonymous @134, I agree that we need more up to date proxies. This should be a high priority in the paleo community. Nevertheless, Table 1 of Ljungqvist (2010) shows that 10 of the 24 proxies used by him extend to 1999 thus including the very hot year of 1998. Consequently, it is not unreasonable to conclude from Ljungqvist's reconstruction that the MWP was as warm as 1998.
Prev 1864 1865 1866 1867 1868 1869 1870 1871 1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 1877 1878 1879 Next
